Opinion
16-P-651
03-21-2017
COMMONWEALTH v. Sofya V. CHERKASHINA.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant, Sofya V. Cherkashina, appeals from a conviction by a jury of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. She was also found responsible for a marked lanes violation. The defendant claims that the judge erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence of her performance on the field sobriety tests. The defendant argues that the motion judge abused her discretion when she denied the defendant's motions to suppress and to dismiss on the grounds that the judge did not properly consider the defendant's language limitations and made several errors in the findings of facts. The Commonwealth argues that because the defendant was obligated to perform the field sobriety tests there are no grounds to suppress the results unless she was subjected to an unreasonable degree of compulsion.
We accept the judge's subsidiary findings of facts and consider only whether they support the judge's ultimate findings and conclusions of law. Commonwealth v. Jones-Pannell , 472 Mass. 429, 438 (2015). We give substantial deference to the judge's ultimate findings and conclusions of law, but we independently review whether the judge correctly applied the constitutional principles to the facts found. Commonwealth v. Eckert , 431 Mass. 591, 593 (2000).
Our review satisfies us that the findings were not clearly erroneous and are supported by the record. The judge considered the opinion offered by the language expert, but credited the testimony of the trooper that the defendant understood his directions and could communicate with him sufficiently. As the judge found, and the record supports, the defendant "indicated on at least two occasions after being stopped that she understood his instructions. She complied with his requests to produce license and registration, to step out of the car and to maintain her position prior to the tests and not to begin until instructed to do so."
The judge did not err in denying the motions to suppress and to dismiss.
Order denying motions to suppress and to dismiss affirmed .
Judgment affirmed .
Finding of responsible affirmed .